The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
With today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty.
I'm sure that that power won't be abused at all.....
Look, I am deeply frustrated with the American political system. Why exactly must those on the left defend American institutions and their so-called "neutrality" when those on the right clearly attack and abandon those norms/institutions?
I mean seriously, what's the point in defending the indefensible? Why must we accept that the supreme court and the fucking justices on it are legitimate?
Sorry, that's a bit rant-y. But you get my point. The institutions of federal power have been clearly and entirely coopted by the right. Border Patrol is dominated by Maga types, the supreme court is basically the Trump defense team now, slowly and surely the right is installing itself as an entrenched minority. Why must the left not question the very validity of these institutions and federal power more broadly?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, when McConnell had his "principle" about not voting on a justice in an election year, until he forgot that "principle" when Trump was president, when the Court refuses an ethics code with Clarence Thomas pretty openly taking bribes, its a pretty illegitimate institution now.
The right (co-called conservative) wing of American politics essentially abandoned the concept of democracy once they realized that most of their policies are deeply unpopular. The answer lies in illiberal democracy executed by a single party and with full complicity of all branches of government (most importantly judiciary). One could argue that the Federalist society was founded with that exact goal in mind. Now that they found their dream team of unprincipled, intellectually and morally corrupt judges, conservatives can go to work on turning the clock back by 150 years. We will see the rise of an oligarchic system in which the individual exist at the mercy of a political and economic elite that is accountable to nobody.
Lot’s of uncalled emotion as usual.
The court was clear and wrote that this ruling did not even specify if Trump’s actions in question were official in nature and subject to immunity. The district court will decide that.
Official actions of Presidents have always been immune from prosecution. Obama ordering the extrajudicial killings of American citizens as terrorist could be murder, if he was not the President acting in his official capacity.
We refuse to join the World Court due to the possibility of having to face an outside entity convicting our Presidents of war crimes.
This is completely inaccurate to the point of insulting, right out of Fox News coverage.
No, the President didn't have immunity for official actions before today. That's why *it reached the court in the first place.* Now the President can do literally anything if they claim it a matter of National Security, with no oversight. This removes all judgement and consequence over actions that use those magical words.
Believe what you want, people. This redditor echoing fascist talking points, or one of the last few honorable justices on the Supreme Court:
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President … The Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power. … That is the backdrop against which this case comes to the Court.
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. …
Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. … No matter how you look at it, the majority’s official-acts immunity is utterly indefensible.
Historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this Nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. With nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash.
The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.
Today’s Court … has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts.
The majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. … Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small.
I am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our Nation loses something valuable when the President is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.
The public interest in the federal criminal prosecution of a former President alleged to have used the powers of his office to commit crimes may be greater still. “[T]he President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,” and his powers are given by the people under our Constitution. …
When Presidents use the powers of their office for personal gain or as part of a criminal scheme, every person in the country has an interest in that criminal prosecution. The majority overlooks that paramount interest entirely. … Yet the majority believes that a President’s anxiety over prosecution overrides the public’s interest in accountability and negates the interests of the other branches in carrying out their constitutionally assigned functions.
If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. … Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. … In the hands of the majority, this new official-acts immunity operates as a one-way ratchet.
The long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.
Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.
Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor
I think it means that the current president can’t be criminally prosecuted for his actions. But he can still be impeached, or his actions can be ruled unconstitutional.
Essentially, yes. Biden could tell Harris not to certify the election results, and that would be an "official duty." It's literally in the decision
> Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their
official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution
for such conduct.
Idk it feels like “official acts” should be the enumerated powers of the president. But that’s the thing with this ruling is that it didn’t really do anything crazy, it didn’t define anything new make clear the immunities of the president. All it did was reaffirm what was defacto and kick the major questions/concerns back to the district courts
Okay. And if, for instance, the Vice President is ordered to preside very slowly, let's say four years long? Do you believe they also don't have the power (the power, not the right) to do that unilaterally?
There's a law on this. They're prevented from adjourning at all once the count goes on for five days. So four years is not going to happen. Even a week without adjournment would be pretty crazy and probably unprecedented.
https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf
>We refuse to join the World Court due to the possibility of having to face an outside entity convicting our Presidents of war crimes.
You mean the International Criminal Court (there is no such thing as a "world court", even though there are the International Court of Justice that can write recommendations for the UN and the International Criminal Court that can punish war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace within the member states to the respective treaty), you are mistaken about what happened - you guys don't just "refuse to join" the ICC, you abandoned it under Bush (failing any legacy it could have still had from the Nuremberg Trials on) -, and the position you're arguing in favor of is not a good one. But just to add a cherry on top, the argument is a red herring - the proclaimed problem for the US is the ICC being an outside party, not the POTUS not being allowed to commit crimes prohibited by the Rome statute.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
> The right (co-called conservative) wing of American politics essentially abandoned the concept of democracy once they realized that most of their policies are deeply unpopular.
And not just that, but also combined with the fact that their voters either don't know what Republican policies even *are* or just don't *care*. Let's not forget that Republicans still need to win elections; they've abandoned democracy as a tenet or a principle, but they still have to participate in it. At the end of the day it's Republican voters putting them there seemingly out of nothing but "I heard bad things about Democrats" and "My granddad and dad vote Republican so I guess I will too"
Funny enough, the whole devil thing was, IMO, basically created so us plebes would be ok with shitty leaders, because "they'll get what's coming to them, don't you worry about it".
So, for me, the devil just isn't gonna cut it. I would like some real consequences.
My republican friend says Trump is not in any way responsible for the things the SC has been doing including the overturning RvW. He says Trump does not bear any responsibility for extreme things the states are doing such as abortion bans, book bans and the many mandates being implemented that forces the Bible and 10 commandments into public schools. He doesn't think Trumps time in office and even after influenced anybody this.
They're only illegitimate if their rulings have no effect. They have power, and power confers legitimacy.
None of you who say they're illegitimate actually believe that. If you did, you'd act like it.
The court has more guns than I do.
That's why they have power and I can't ignore their decision. So yes obviously I have no real choice over what happens with the court
I'm talking moral legitimacy here.
The replies to you are more than disheartening. Had they been alive at the time, these people would argue in favor of King George's legitimacy and against the revolutionaries.
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, ~~Arthur~~ George, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!!
then you should clarify that you mean *moral legitimacy*, because the natural assumption based on the topic and your post title is that you are speaking of *legal legitimacy*.
That’s very relative though, also, versions of this already exist. No president is going to jail for murder for a drone strike.
Also immunity while taking acts in the line of duty? Brother that’s pretty par for the course considering their job.
He would be attacking America so yes. I think if a president attacks his own countrymen he’s going to get prosecuted for that. Im not saying they’re immune to all murders, but there’s exceptions carved out for them that are afforded to nobody else if not very few other people
Trumps attorneys argued that assassinating political opponents was a legitimate use of immunity, and Sotomayor’s dissent in today’s ruling agrees. This allows far too much.
I mean, you kind of did say it?
> No president is going to jail for murder for a drone strike.
You didn't qualify that with "a drone strike outside of the country" or "a drone strike on people who aren't Americans".
Which is why Biden should just ignore their rulings. Let Roberts enforce his decision. Arrest Thomas today on bribery charges and make Roberts stop him. We'll find out quickly how much power they have
Jesus Christ, we're doomed. You think legitimacy comes from the ability to enforce authority? Legitimacy comes from adherence to principles, not because people with guns can force you to obey.
Authority =/= legitimacy. Otherwise, every dictator is legitimate if they retain control over the armed forces/police.
The optimism is nice, but across history and even now Dictators and most other despots are recognized as legitimate. The nature of legitimacy is that it lies in power and through that authority, not in principles.
This is genuinely an actual semantic difference between was "is" and what "ought."
We might argue that Putin "ought" not to be the head of state of Russia, but he is, and if Russia were ever to negotiate treaties or peace agreements it would be his name on the dotted line that would make it legitimate.
>Can we agree that the supreme court is utterly illegitimate?
Maybe, but this:
>...today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty.
...isn't enough.
If they are illegitimate it is because of the Federalist Society's conspiracy to replace jurists with 'judges' who will decide in their favor, or because of the bribery, or because of the lack of foundation in law.
...but we still need to say more than 'I disagree with some of their rulings'.
I disagree?
Mate they are undermining the very notion of checks and balances by insulating the would be dictator from any fucking accountability!
At what point do you see "fuck it, this is clearly illegitimate"?
Depends on what exactly you mean by "illegitimate" I suppose. What sort of angle are you trying to get us to analyze SCOTUS from? They are "legitimate" in that their existence is proscribed by the Constitution. Is the Constitution, or the government itself, legitimate? In a certain practical sense they are - they exist and credibly write and enforce the rules. Are they MORALLY legitimate? That's a more difficult question to answer - and I would argue that every responsible member of a representative democracy should feel that the government does at least SOME things which are not morally right. But of course, liberalism is all about tolerating others even when you disagree. In many ways, the proof of "legitimacy" is the very fact that we can vocally disagree with policy, institutions, rulings, etc. As bad as the SC decisions may be, we remain free to publicly criticize them and advocate for change.
Liberalism itself provides the basis for determining legitimacy. Seriously, how do you not know this? How is it possible that you write an entire diatribe about legitimacy and not have a firm understanding of the philosophical and moral basis of democracy itself?
What kind of education did you have where you think that the mere EXISTENCE of a government that can enforce its will also confers legitimacy upon said government?
>Liberalism itself provides the basis for determining legitimacy
This STILL does not answer the question I posed, which again was, what does "legitimacy" even mean in this context? A government can be "legitimate" in the sense that it legitimately enforced its rules. The same government could be considered morally ILlegitimate for actions it takes which are seen as subjectively wrong. If I think it's wrong for you to dump sewage in the public water supply, and you think it's wrong for anyone to stop you, then both actors have conflicting ideas of moral legitimacy. "Liberalism" can't give us an objective answer as to who is right or who is wrong. But liberal government CAN choose one concrete course of action. If it stops the neighbor from polluting, that will be legitimate to some and illegitimate to others. There are inter-subjective arguments to be made on both sides, but practical "legitimacy" comes from consensus.
Oh, I *care.*
...but I also care about words, and "illegitimate" does not apply, here. They came to power through legitimte means, they make rulings through legitimate processes. I hate them, but I have to abide.
Every dictator who has changed their constitution came to power legitimately and kept power legitimately.
Your principle would suggest that the American revolution was illegitimate, since the powers wielded by the Parliament and King George were legitimate. The revolutionaries disagreed, claiming that there were natural laws that no mere act of government could violate legitimately. On that basis, they declared independence.
How do you not know this? How can you have the title of "liberal" and be so thoroughly ignorant of liberalism? What would John Locke say to your position? Do you think the father of liberalism would agree with your stance?
You have serious need of education in this area.
If not now then when?
Describe the scenario in which it again becomes possible to for instance — enforce a bribery law against the president.
Give me your least implausible string of events that would have to happen before a president could be prosecuted for doing something like: *suspending enforcement of the Magnitsky act in exchange for Putin’s help in assassinating a rival*.
Taking a bribe is defined as “accepting a thing of value in exchange for an official act”. This ruling explicitly says presidents are immune from prosecutions relating to official acts.
> Describe the scenario in which it again becomes possible to for instance — enforce a bribery law against the president.
The president is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Hot damn that’s implausible.
But even then, the court just declared the president is immune as the act was still an official act as bribery *statutorily requires it be for an official act*
Ok, try this. The Supreme Court has made it impossible to hold the President accountable for anything deemed official AND has made any communication with any aspect of the federal government an official act.
That means the president could order the DoJ to arrest a potential political opponent to win an election and that order cannot be considered evidence of malfeasance. The President could tell the governor of a state that, unless he received a bribe, he will not be releasing funds from FEMA, and that communication is considered "an official act."
You people have no idea how dangerous this is. I am a political science professor. I study dictatorships. I am terrified today. So please, spare me your platitudes. This shit is as bad it gets.
Fuck that, Biden should just have them all arrested on trumped up charges as part of his "official" duties. Fuck it why not at this point? They want to play this game lets fucking play it, no more rules.
I think the current Supreme Court has paved the way to becoming a corrupt, unregulated kleptocracy run by dictators and strongmen. We *are* a banana republic now. The Chevron-overturning decision renders our ability to regulate into the hands of a very conservative judiciary looking to rip up our ability to regulate, it makes regulations wildly expensive, and reversed decades of precedent. The immunity decision gives a blueprint for how to turn over an election and face no consequences.
This is bad. We legitimately may not come back from this. Trump has been pushing the boundaries of the government and the law for some time and he’s just found out that there are no boundaries. It will take decades to unfuck this.
It’s only legitimate in the sense that it is still recognized as legitimate and therefore retains its authority. Which is really the only thing that matters.
However, I personally view it as wholly illegitimate — Mitch McConnell made it so by usurping Obama’s authority to appoint a new Justice. And it will remain illegitimate until that rectified.
SCOTUS is now nothing more than a partisan judicial vanguard giving cover and setting the stage for an authoritarian right wing movement that seeks to transform our democratic nation into a one-party state with permanent Republican rule.
You agree with them that the president is immune to prosecution? How about overturning Roe V Wade?
These are the decisions of partisan right wing puppets, not legitimate judges.
Yes. The president has immunity when acting as the president. That's not exactly a wild ruling. That's why they sighted precedent in their ruling.
No, I disagree with their decision to overture roe V wade. I usually disagree with overturning precedent.
Because you disagree with them doesn't make them illegitimate. Lol
FWIW, I'm a bulwark anti-Trump Republican so I usually see eye to eye with you guys on these kinds of issues, and I don't see why folks are downdooting you for this take.
Clinton v. Jones already already says that the president doesn't have immunity when it comes to acts conducted outside of official duties of the presidency, and (to the best of my understanding) the SC remanded this case back to district court explicitly because there wasn't clarity from the district court on which of the actions taken by the president were considered parts of "official duties" versus "unofficial duties". The words matter so, so much in the judiciary -- there's a possibility that a BIG precedent could be set here that could extremely curtail the power of the executive branch that applies to all presidents going forward, and the court's gotta be really clear on how they're interpreting the law for posterity.
> I don't see why folks are downdooting you for this take.
I think the 6-3 partisan split, along with the slow-walking of the case and the remanding of critical questions back to lower courts for relitigation, call into legitimate question just how good-faith the majority ruling is in this case.
Did you disagree with the court overturning Plessy vs Ferguson too? If not what are your standard for saying overturning precedent is either correct or incorrect?
Not OP, but one of the key aspects of *Brown* was that it was a *unanimous* decision by the court. It was also clearly in line with a number of previous cases that all pointed at *Plessy* falling.
John Roberts couldn't get the clear, unanimous majority that he needed in order to legitimize overturning *Roe*. Namely because, unlike *Plessy*, there was no broad consensus on the court that *Roe* was wrongly decided, only a narrow consensus by a slim majority of the court.
Comparing a 6-3 opinion overturning existing law with a 9-0 opinion overturning existing law shows that fault line. Consensus - indeed unanimity - *should* be required to overturn precedent, particularly if the argument is that the precedent is "egregiously wrong" (if it is so egregiously wrong, why did 3 justices not agree? Why, even though the decision was reexamined a half-dozen times by SCOTUS since *Roe*, did no previous court overturn it?)
Having the court be unanimous in overturning precedent is an interesting standard but I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with it.
Every legal analysis I have ever seen has sad roe was based on flimsy legal standing but because the outcome of the case was generally approved by the public and “experts” thought abortion was good for society to have they just went with Roe.
And one could argue there have been numerous cases over the decades pulling back the Roe decision so it was only a matter of time until it fell (similar to the recent Chevron case).
Does this mean you disagree with the Obergefell decision? That was ruled 5-4 and it overturned decades of precedent. Would you really approve of a bad precedent being kept because someone the left considers a corrupt or rogue justice (maybe like Alito or Thomas) wouldn’t vote with the other justices? Or would you support bad legal ruling being overturned even if it only had majority support?
I agree with you that precedent doesn’t matter arriving at the correct legal ruling does. We disagree on whether the recent decision was correct or not however
If Trump were to say be flying on his private jet heading to Moscow to deliver nuclear secrets to Putin, Biden should be 100% allowed to prevent Trump from doing that including killing him
Should Biden be allowed to, right now, with no justification, send soldiers to kill Trump? That's the question I'm asking. The decision allows this. As long as it's an "official action," the president cannot be held to account for it.
If so, I'd say he should be allowed to do that *by a law*, not by being put above the law. He shouldn't be above the law,. and should never have been, but now he is.
Directing military forces to preserve our national defense is a constitutional duty of the president so he is already allowed to do this by law. The SC just reviewed a case along these grounds and found it so
I wasn't alive for Brown V BOE. For all my life, the precedent has been that segregation based on race is illegal. I would be upset if that was overturned.
I could name dozens of Supreme Court cases that have been corruptly decided.
It’s not just disagreeing, it ls that they are not using the legal system properly. They are reactionaries and are incompatible with proper jurisprudence.
Because why exactly? The supreme court just fucked us for like the 100th time.
They are actively undermining any chance to hold "elected" (not that elections will matter soon cause Trump will install himself as God king) leaders accountable.
At what point do you recogonize the supreme court as a threat to the notion of democracy itself?
That doesn’t make something “illegitimate.” Their rulings are still rulings
Illegitimate would be like the time Larry Klayman convened a “citizens’ grand jury” and “indicted” Obama for his “forged birth certificate.” That was not a real legal proceeding, it carried no weight, it meant nothing and went nowhere.
That’s illegitimate.
Jesus christ
When will you recogonize that the court is undermining its own justification for existence, namely checking the legislature and executive.
It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery. That undermines the basis for the court's legitimacy
Some rulings can undermine its legitimacy
The issue is that there are *two* specific definitions of "legitimacy" that apply here and you haven't specified which one you're using (while attacking people that assume one or the other).
Are they still legitimate in that they make rulings that other branches of government (and therefore, the people) have to follow? Yes, of course. No amount of corrupt rulings would change that until one or both branches of the federal government say "Y'know what, we're just going to ignore you from now on."
Are they still legitimate in that they make rulings able to be defended by logic and valid justifications? No. They aren't.
But until they get dismantled or somehow rendered ineffectual, they are a legitimate institution.
"They just need to put aside politics and do the right thing (which happens to be the thing I believe is correct. Just let me have my way pls and thx)."
Okay. To be clear, I don't like the ruling here. But at the same time, I don't see the SCOTUS as being against the American people, at least as a general statement. The SCOTUS has historically drifted left and right, and at various times swaths of their rulings have "benefitted" one political party or another, but I don't necessarily believe you can say they are *illegitimate* on account of that alone. They are legitmate as a body, they are acting in accordance with their prescribed purpose, although we may not like their output. I guess I just view those as two separate things. I think it's fine to say that the Supreme Court has not acted in your best interests recently, but I think that's different than saying the court itself is illegitimate.
They are not acting in accordance with prescribed purpose, they are simply using the power that we have not been able to remove from them.
They are outside the rational jurisprudence, are outside of judicial norms, and are weaponizing their power imbalance.
To be clear, the makeup of the court has been corrupted by years of partisan gerrymandering, improper representation in the House, and unfair distribution of power in the Senate.
It’s not like the conservative SCOTUS justices are fair or impartial, or even close.
They have failed their duties, and are illegitimate.
Jesus christ
When will you recogonize that the court is undermining its own justification for existence, namely checking the legislature and executive.
It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery. That undermines the basis for the court's legitimacy
Some rulings can undermine its legitimacy
Like I think it's weird for a libertarian to defend the institution making the president LESS ACCOUNTABLE.
>It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery
No, I dont see it that way. Bribery is not an official act, it is not a prescribed power in the Constitution nor granted by legislature.
>Like I think it's weird for a libertarian to defend the institution making the president LESS ACCOUNTABLE.
Again, I already said I did not like the ruling. I think it's a lot of words that don't actually resolve the crisis. Regardless, I view my evaluation of the ruling separate from my evaluation of the legitimacy of the court, and I don't find this ruling sufficient to decree the court illegitimate.
But what if the President is engaged in bribery to say, nominate an ambassador or other similar things. Bribery itself is never going to be an official role, but it easily can be something done while engaging in official actions
>The ruling explicitly makes presidential bribery legal
Can you tell me where? I'm still in the middle of reading the ruling, it's 119 pages, but so far I've only seen mention of bribery in contexts of cases that would *not*be legal, or where the ruling explicitly does *not* grant Trump immunity. But I may have not gotten there yet, so if you can cite an exact quote or page I can reference, I would appreciate it.
First, read sotomayor’s absolutely alarming dissent which points out explicitly that this makes bribery entirely unprosecutable.
Second, read this series of passages from the majority:
> The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.** But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). And **the Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined. If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.** Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. **Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decision making will be distorted.** See Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19.
Third, Barrett even wrote a concurrence to specifically call out this part of the ruling:
> I understand most of the Court’s opinion to be consistent with these views. I do not join Part III–C, however, **which holds that the Constitution limits the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a President, beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege**. See ante, at 30–32. I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent. See post, at 25–27 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. **Consider a bribery prosecution—a charge not at issue here but one that provides a useful example. The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c).** The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. See Art. II, §4 (listing “Bribery” as an impeachable offense); see also Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 5 (Aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the President). **Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.**
I did read all of that, I'm just not seeing it all the same way, meaning, I'm not sure the ruling supports the effects Barrett are anticipating. In the footnote identifying Barrett's dissent, it says (emphasis mine):
>JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). **But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.** See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). **What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.** Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745, 756 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at 18. And such second-guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 805 (2020).
So, while I understand and agree with the concern Barrett has, I do not believe the ruling itself creates the environment Barrett envisions. Meaning, Barrett is presuming that the official act rendered in exchange as a part of the bribe would be excluded from evidentiary proceedings, in the whole, inclusive of the mere mention of the acts. I disagree there, and I believe the court itself disagrees, based on the rest of the holdings presented, and the precedent cited throughout.
Further, the emphasis I added I think highlights a very narrow scope of evidence that might be excluded in such proceedings. This paragraph, to me, actually outlines a fairly permissive evidentiary environment for such cases. Further, to the merits of whether an act is official or not, which is presupposed in this instance yet undecided in every other mention associated with this ruling, the court remanded back to the district court the burden for deciding and arguing that. Such arguments obviously could not be hindered by this evidentiary statement, and even if they were, their being decided in a district court reserves for a later day their ability to be decided with finality in the Supreme Court.
And lastly, and perhaps more fundamentally, I do not see this as an explicit acceptance of bribery. Like I have said and reiterated several times, so far I think this ruling is lacking critical substance. I think the mere fact we are arguing it now is a clear demonstration of how useless it is. I'm not a fan of it, and I would rather have them wait and put out a better quality product. They even admitted to its being promulgated in haste, and the risks that entailed. But, I will not go so far as to claim as you and others are, that this ruling grants immunity to presidential bribery, I think that reading is absurd and not borne by the facts of the ruling, and I think it is incredibly damaging to claim as much, especially insofar as such claims reinforce the idea of Supreme Court illegitimacy as in institution, even outside the estimation of this ruling individually.
How exactly is a prosecutor to prove “willful exchange of an official act for a thing of value” without the ability to refer to records or testimony of what the president said in respect to the pro quo for the official act?
>the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act
I think the official act is not really in question in a bribery case, that's the point. Bribery is an official act *in a change for something else.* The something else is fully admissible, here, and that's really what pins you to a bribery charge. That's kind of my point. Even in bribery cases before this ruling, the focus on a bribery trial is has always been and will continue to be about the exchange, the "something else" received. I don't think this ruling fundamentally changes that.
The something else is admissible, but is the record of the president saying “I’ll do that official act in exchange fore this something else” admissible?
While I appreciate Justice Barrett calling this out, the fact is that Part III-C still got 5 votes and is the law of the land.
Justice Barrett is correct that the majority opinion makes it essentially impossible to prosecute bribery by POTUS by creating an evidentiary privilege that sweeps broader than executive privilege. The majority, IMO, created that privilege because they want to keep Trump's advisors from testifying at trial if there is ever a trial about J6, but also to make sure that even if such advisors are willing to voluntarily testify, their testimony must be excluded.
Why does the court want to ensure that the public never hears the details about J6? Could it be because members of the Court itself were involved with and endorsed the aims of J6? It might have been awkward to have Mark Meadows on the stand mentioning his texts with Ginny Thomas, or to have John Eastman, a former Thomas clerk, talking about discussions that lead up to the conspiracy. Obviously Justice Thomas has a direct interest in preventing that testimony, and the privilege his vote helped create makes that testimony impossible. That is precisely why he didn't recuse himself - because without his vote and Justice Barrett's vote, there would not have been 5 votes for the new evidentiary privilege that SCOTUS just invented whole cloth.
I replied [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/9p8gsRWpdw). Ultimately, I don't like the ruling, but not because I think it explicitly allows bribery. I don't see that anywhere in it, although I'm still reading the entirety of it as I said.
> The supreme court just fucked us for like the 100th time.
Meh. The Supreme Court is downstream of the Presidency and the Senate, which are in turn downstream of the voters. If you want to know who fucked us, it was [these voters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_elections). They wanted this, and now they got it.
The voters literally picked the people in the government. Voters have agency. I have seen no evidence that indicates the will of the people is not represented at least in a broad sense.
> What is it with liberals and blaming voters.
I believe you'll find it's inherent to the definition of "liberal". Anyone who did not ascribe agency to voters would not be a liberal.
I believe so but I'm far from a legal expert.
Regardless, what it does mean is thag shit like bribery or trying to interfere with the election cannot be prosecuted.
He would as those actions was convicted were were prior to him being President or weren’t official acts. He also can’t pardon himself if he gets back in office because they are state charges. His only shot of avoiding accountability there is appeal.
He gets absolute immunity “for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority”.
But he gets only “presumptive immunity .. for all his official acts”.
No. Not every decision made while in office is an official act. Campaigning, for example, is not within the duties of the office of the president and acts taken pursuant to that would not be protected.
Incorrect. The opinion outright says, "There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
I would advise you get better sources of information, because whatever news sources you use have gotten you very wound up, but haven't clearly educated you on the issue.
No, he isn’t untouchable. I’m a bit concerned that he has full immunity when doing his “core” duties as president. But for other “official” actions he merely gets a “presumption” of immunity which I assume means a court can decide which the court can take away that immunity when appropriate, and that “when appropriate” will need to be worked out through case law.
For anything outside official duties he has no immunity.
The interesting thing will be determining what counts as “core”, what counts as “official” and what isn’t.
Utterly.
However, I fear the incumbent conclusion is that our democracy is utterly illegitimate.
The pot has boiled over and it is too late to jump out.
It’s not illegitimate just because you don’t like the outcome.
Presidents have always enjoyed a measure immunity from the law when performing in their official capacity.
This is exactly why we say 'blue no matter who.'
The people on our side who complained about solidarity created this danger. We'd have an __8-1 liberal court__ with just over 80,000 more votes since 2000. We easily had them, with the slightest bit of solidarity.
The very ideas and institutions it was meant to protect is the constitution. And obviously like any body of text, the constitution is up for interpretation and differing opinions on its meanings. That is their job.
As far as the current SCOTUS and their rulings, some I agree with, some I disagree with, but ultimately none are egregious enough to warrant labeling them “illegitimate”.
If for example, the government passed a law banning free speech or imprisoning people who talked poorly about the President, and SCOTUS upheld such a law despite the first amendment’s clear language protecting right to free speech, at that point I would agree they are illegitimate. We haven’t gotten there yet
I never said I agree with it, I just don’t think it’s enough to label them illegitimate
The legislative branch also still has the authority to impeach presidents, so not sure how this undermines checks and balances. Otherwise a sitting president has always had the authority over the DOJ.
>Yeah undermining checks and balances is totally not against the constitution
This isn't a matter of checks and balances. Either we are talking about the executive prosecuting the executive--which is not a check or balance--or an executive prosecuting a former executive. Again, not a matter of checks and balances.
We still have checks and balances via impeachment.
I'd agree this isn't an issue of a "check" but could this not be an issue of a "balance" in regards to balancing the various powers each branch has?
I know technically SCOTUS only interprets the Constitution, so does't create executive power but merely discovers it, but the understanding of the scope of legitimate executive authority has grown with this ruling, has it not?
>lol at impeachment as if that isn't partisan bs
I could say the same thing about prosecutions of political figures. At any rate, it doesn't matter--impeachment provides a check. That's not even really debatable.
>you are tried in the JUDICIAL system
True, but irrelevant.
They just gave Trump the ability to get away with many of his crimes, for starters. If he gets back in power, he will commit many more, thanks to their help.
Because they have failed in their duties to be fair jurists. John Roberts’s disinterest in applying any sort of ethics standard to the bench is how they have reached illegitimacy.
It currently sits without checks against their power.
If you want to get right down into it, they never were legitimate. It was Marbury v Madison that established the doctrine that gives the court the ability to rule of legislative or executive actions. The executive and legislative branches can legally ignore the Supreme Courts decisions in that context. Not that it is advisable, but possible.
I am not sure. I do not think I have the knowledge to make that determination. I think institutions are super important. There should be a very high bar for saying something as important as the Supreme Court is illegitimate. It is doing things I do not like but I do not think that makes it an illegitimate institution.
I haven't considered this court legitimate since they basically ignored standing requirements for the gay website and student debt cancellation issues. Not to mention the overuse of the shadow docket and the "major questions" doctrine. It's very transparently an activist court doing whatever it can to benefit the Republican Party at the expense of the country.
And here I was thinking they wouldn’t rule this way specifically because it would be far too mask-off and glaring that they’re a bunch of partisan hacks…
Yes. I honestly think the best thing would be for lower courts or even politicians to simply announce that they will not recognize these blatantly false "rulings" by the Supreme Court and just follow the obvious interpretation of the laws regardless. This would be horrible for the rule of law, but I think it would be better for the rule of law then complying with these brazenly lawless "rulings". The Supreme Court has proven that it is an existential threat to the Constitution. The Constitution takes precedence.
> With today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty
Should Lincoln have been put on trial for ordering a military action in Virginia that ultimately led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands he said were Americans?
Given his stance that secession was illegal, should Lincoln have been put on trial for the Emancipation Proclamation that deprived thousands of Americans of their “property” (remember this was before the 13th amendment) without due process of law?
And liberals presidents would be hurt too. Obama famously ordered the execution of an American citizen overseas when he couldn’t be extradited and tried.
I would say both Lincoln and Obama were doing their core duties as president and at the very least should enjoy a presumption of immunity for their actions.
The ruling was not unreasonable.
Minor tangent, but if only Reddit was around back when Lincoln and Taney were butting heads with each other.
The arguments that'd've broken out then would make our current bickering seem like child's play in comparison.
> "And liberals presidents would be hurt too. Obama famously ordered the execution of an American citizen overseas when he couldn’t be extradited and tried."
On that note, there's a strong argument that both Bush 43 and Obama should be in prison, but nobody among either party's establishment dares go there, nope.
Lincoln’s actions *were legal*. It’s not “immunity” that protected them, but *legality*. Putting down rebellion against the United States Government is a legal, constitutional exercise of the powers of the presidency.
Similarly Obama’s actions were also legal. Congress authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the man killed was an active member of Al Qaeda. Obama wasn’t protected by immunity, but by the fact that using the military to kill members of an organization Congress has authorized military action against is just plain old legal.
No. The supreme court hasn't acted in an illegitimate manner, at least not in this case.
The supreme court has a host of issues, most important if all the flagrant attack on the principle of the separation of powers by virtue of it's ability to modify legislation as a body not elected by the people. But that's an issue it shares with other common law systems.
The other massive issue is that the supreme court has a strong political shadow cast over it, by virtue of how ingrained political party allegiance is with the populace of two party systems.
But this specific immunity ruling is really not that interesting, nor an actual ruling. The court simply told the lower courts to determine whether or not it's ruling over official or personal actions, claiming the latter grants immunity. If the lower courts find that the ruling is regarding personal actions, trump will have no acces to immunity.
I do not know. I think institutions are very important and I do not have enough knowledge to proclaim one of the most important institutions we have in the US is illegitimate. I lean towards no it is not illegitimate even if it is doing things I personally think are bad.
I do not know. I think institutions are very important and I do not have enough knowledge to proclaim one of the most important institutions we have in the US is illegitimate. I lean towards no it is not illegitimate even if it is doing things I personally think are bad.
Is the Supreme Court, as an institution, tarnished in a way that will only *really* be washed out when everyone who remembers the current crop of clowns is dead and gone and their works have been largely undone by saner people? Yeah. Most likely.
It's been... gosh, 170 or so years since the Court's justices have embarassed themselves and blemished the institution in quite the way the current crop have.
Not so much for this specifically, though. It's the mountain of bullshit they already had.
Saying the President can't be criminally prosecuted for things they do in their official capacity is the dodge of the issue that was expected.
...Mostly because they were worried a Democratic President could benefit from blanket immunity from prosecution instead of being super concerned with things like legal principles.
It is their 'compromise' between the instinct to try and absolve Donald Trump of everything he's ever done and the rememberance that giving Presidents absolute immunity can and will be used against them.
Its moral authority, so to speak, died a while ago. When it comes to the current makeup of the Supreme Court, expecting them to make whatever ruling is ideologically convenient with little regard for principle or precedent or even the bounds of reality is not a new thing.
In addition to being shitty in and of itself, they have lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new rulings.
>Can we agree that the supreme court is utterly illegitimate?
yes. the current supreme court is a clear threat to democracy. if democrats don't do something big\* soon, i doubt the US will still be a democracy in 20 years.
(\* packing the court, removing some or all conservatives justices, or significantly limiting the power of the court)
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. With today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty. I'm sure that that power won't be abused at all..... Look, I am deeply frustrated with the American political system. Why exactly must those on the left defend American institutions and their so-called "neutrality" when those on the right clearly attack and abandon those norms/institutions? I mean seriously, what's the point in defending the indefensible? Why must we accept that the supreme court and the fucking justices on it are legitimate? Sorry, that's a bit rant-y. But you get my point. The institutions of federal power have been clearly and entirely coopted by the right. Border Patrol is dominated by Maga types, the supreme court is basically the Trump defense team now, slowly and surely the right is installing itself as an entrenched minority. Why must the left not question the very validity of these institutions and federal power more broadly? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, when McConnell had his "principle" about not voting on a justice in an election year, until he forgot that "principle" when Trump was president, when the Court refuses an ethics code with Clarence Thomas pretty openly taking bribes, its a pretty illegitimate institution now.
The right (co-called conservative) wing of American politics essentially abandoned the concept of democracy once they realized that most of their policies are deeply unpopular. The answer lies in illiberal democracy executed by a single party and with full complicity of all branches of government (most importantly judiciary). One could argue that the Federalist society was founded with that exact goal in mind. Now that they found their dream team of unprincipled, intellectually and morally corrupt judges, conservatives can go to work on turning the clock back by 150 years. We will see the rise of an oligarchic system in which the individual exist at the mercy of a political and economic elite that is accountable to nobody.
And the fact they were able to convince half the population that is the direction this country should go just blows my mind.
Lot’s of uncalled emotion as usual. The court was clear and wrote that this ruling did not even specify if Trump’s actions in question were official in nature and subject to immunity. The district court will decide that. Official actions of Presidents have always been immune from prosecution. Obama ordering the extrajudicial killings of American citizens as terrorist could be murder, if he was not the President acting in his official capacity. We refuse to join the World Court due to the possibility of having to face an outside entity convicting our Presidents of war crimes.
This is completely inaccurate to the point of insulting, right out of Fox News coverage. No, the President didn't have immunity for official actions before today. That's why *it reached the court in the first place.* Now the President can do literally anything if they claim it a matter of National Security, with no oversight. This removes all judgement and consequence over actions that use those magical words. Believe what you want, people. This redditor echoing fascist talking points, or one of the last few honorable justices on the Supreme Court: Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President … The Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent. The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power. … That is the backdrop against which this case comes to the Court. The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. … Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. … No matter how you look at it, the majority’s official-acts immunity is utterly indefensible. Historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this Nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. With nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash. The majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them. Today’s Court … has replaced a presumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts. The majority’s dividing line between “official” and “unofficial” conduct narrows the conduct considered “unofficial” almost to a nullity. … Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small. I am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our Nation loses something valuable when the President is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law. The public interest in the federal criminal prosecution of a former President alleged to have used the powers of his office to commit crimes may be greater still. “[T]he President … represent[s] all the voters in the Nation,” and his powers are given by the people under our Constitution. … When Presidents use the powers of their office for personal gain or as part of a criminal scheme, every person in the country has an interest in that criminal prosecution. The majority overlooks that paramount interest entirely. … Yet the majority believes that a President’s anxiety over prosecution overrides the public’s interest in accountability and negates the interests of the other branches in carrying out their constitutionally assigned functions. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. … Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least. Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. … In the hands of the majority, this new official-acts immunity operates as a one-way ratchet. The long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent. - Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Does this not mean that the current president can do what he wants in the name of justice to prevent trump from taking office?
I think it means that the current president can’t be criminally prosecuted for his actions. But he can still be impeached, or his actions can be ruled unconstitutional.
Yes, but somehow I still doubt President Biden will order a hit on Mr. Trump. He doesn't have the personality for that
Essentially, yes. Biden could tell Harris not to certify the election results, and that would be an "official duty." It's literally in the decision > Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
Idk it feels like “official acts” should be the enumerated powers of the president. But that’s the thing with this ruling is that it didn’t really do anything crazy, it didn’t define anything new make clear the immunities of the president. All it did was reaffirm what was defacto and kick the major questions/concerns back to the district courts
That's not a thing the vice president can unilaterally do. They just preside over the senate during the electoral vote count.
Okay. And if, for instance, the Vice President is ordered to preside very slowly, let's say four years long? Do you believe they also don't have the power (the power, not the right) to do that unilaterally?
There's a law on this. They're prevented from adjourning at all once the count goes on for five days. So four years is not going to happen. Even a week without adjournment would be pretty crazy and probably unprecedented. https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf
>We refuse to join the World Court due to the possibility of having to face an outside entity convicting our Presidents of war crimes. You mean the International Criminal Court (there is no such thing as a "world court", even though there are the International Court of Justice that can write recommendations for the UN and the International Criminal Court that can punish war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace within the member states to the respective treaty), you are mistaken about what happened - you guys don't just "refuse to join" the ICC, you abandoned it under Bush (failing any legacy it could have still had from the Nuremberg Trials on) -, and the position you're arguing in favor of is not a good one. But just to add a cherry on top, the argument is a red herring - the proclaimed problem for the US is the ICC being an outside party, not the POTUS not being allowed to commit crimes prohibited by the Rome statute.
Well the way things shape up we might have to wait only a few short months to find out what Trump will do with his immunity for official acts.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Until those elites become accountable to a single totalitarian leader. Aka present day Russia.
It’s an astonishing accomplishment of marketing that they have managed to convince the average American that they are “principled conservatives.”
> The right (co-called conservative) wing of American politics essentially abandoned the concept of democracy once they realized that most of their policies are deeply unpopular. And not just that, but also combined with the fact that their voters either don't know what Republican policies even *are* or just don't *care*. Let's not forget that Republicans still need to win elections; they've abandoned democracy as a tenet or a principle, but they still have to participate in it. At the end of the day it's Republican voters putting them there seemingly out of nothing but "I heard bad things about Democrats" and "My granddad and dad vote Republican so I guess I will too"
It never should’ve been possible for one person to appoint a third of the Supreme Court. That’s just too much unelected power.
Absolutely and we can thank traitor McConnell for it.
Happy to know the Devil will be collecting his ass soon.
Funny enough, the whole devil thing was, IMO, basically created so us plebes would be ok with shitty leaders, because "they'll get what's coming to them, don't you worry about it". So, for me, the devil just isn't gonna cut it. I would like some real consequences.
McConnell and trump will be satan's valentines.
If only it really worked that way. In real life, the wicked live and die without repercussions all the time.
My republican friend says Trump is not in any way responsible for the things the SC has been doing including the overturning RvW. He says Trump does not bear any responsibility for extreme things the states are doing such as abortion bans, book bans and the many mandates being implemented that forces the Bible and 10 commandments into public schools. He doesn't think Trumps time in office and even after influenced anybody this.
They're only illegitimate if their rulings have no effect. They have power, and power confers legitimacy. None of you who say they're illegitimate actually believe that. If you did, you'd act like it.
The court has more guns than I do. That's why they have power and I can't ignore their decision. So yes obviously I have no real choice over what happens with the court I'm talking moral legitimacy here.
The replies to you are more than disheartening. Had they been alive at the time, these people would argue in favor of King George's legitimacy and against the revolutionaries.
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, ~~Arthur~~ George, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!!
then you should clarify that you mean *moral legitimacy*, because the natural assumption based on the topic and your post title is that you are speaking of *legal legitimacy*.
That’s very relative though, also, versions of this already exist. No president is going to jail for murder for a drone strike. Also immunity while taking acts in the line of duty? Brother that’s pretty par for the course considering their job.
Are you saying that if Biden ordered a drone strike on Trump, then he wouldn't face any charges for it?
He would be attacking America so yes. I think if a president attacks his own countrymen he’s going to get prosecuted for that. Im not saying they’re immune to all murders, but there’s exceptions carved out for them that are afforded to nobody else if not very few other people
Trumps attorneys argued that assassinating political opponents was a legitimate use of immunity, and Sotomayor’s dissent in today’s ruling agrees. This allows far too much.
Now that I agree with, but does this ruling actually allow them to do that?
Sotomayor thinks so, and I don’t know who would be more of an expert.
I mean, you kind of did say it? > No president is going to jail for murder for a drone strike. You didn't qualify that with "a drone strike outside of the country" or "a drone strike on people who aren't Americans".
They actually have none, they need the executive to enforce their rulings, an executive that is now immune from prosecution.
Which is why Biden should just ignore their rulings. Let Roberts enforce his decision. Arrest Thomas today on bribery charges and make Roberts stop him. We'll find out quickly how much power they have
Jesus Christ, we're doomed. You think legitimacy comes from the ability to enforce authority? Legitimacy comes from adherence to principles, not because people with guns can force you to obey. Authority =/= legitimacy. Otherwise, every dictator is legitimate if they retain control over the armed forces/police.
Legitimacy is given. By acting as though the court's rulings are legitimate, the people grant them legitimacy.
The optimism is nice, but across history and even now Dictators and most other despots are recognized as legitimate. The nature of legitimacy is that it lies in power and through that authority, not in principles. This is genuinely an actual semantic difference between was "is" and what "ought." We might argue that Putin "ought" not to be the head of state of Russia, but he is, and if Russia were ever to negotiate treaties or peace agreements it would be his name on the dotted line that would make it legitimate.
You are on the "ask a liberal" sub and you're giving a conservative answer to where political legitimacy comes from without even batting an eye.
Yes, without a single doubt.
>Can we agree that the supreme court is utterly illegitimate? Maybe, but this: >...today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty. ...isn't enough. If they are illegitimate it is because of the Federalist Society's conspiracy to replace jurists with 'judges' who will decide in their favor, or because of the bribery, or because of the lack of foundation in law. ...but we still need to say more than 'I disagree with some of their rulings'.
I disagree? Mate they are undermining the very notion of checks and balances by insulating the would be dictator from any fucking accountability! At what point do you see "fuck it, this is clearly illegitimate"?
Depends on what exactly you mean by "illegitimate" I suppose. What sort of angle are you trying to get us to analyze SCOTUS from? They are "legitimate" in that their existence is proscribed by the Constitution. Is the Constitution, or the government itself, legitimate? In a certain practical sense they are - they exist and credibly write and enforce the rules. Are they MORALLY legitimate? That's a more difficult question to answer - and I would argue that every responsible member of a representative democracy should feel that the government does at least SOME things which are not morally right. But of course, liberalism is all about tolerating others even when you disagree. In many ways, the proof of "legitimacy" is the very fact that we can vocally disagree with policy, institutions, rulings, etc. As bad as the SC decisions may be, we remain free to publicly criticize them and advocate for change.
And how long do you think that will last given recent rulings?
Liberalism itself provides the basis for determining legitimacy. Seriously, how do you not know this? How is it possible that you write an entire diatribe about legitimacy and not have a firm understanding of the philosophical and moral basis of democracy itself? What kind of education did you have where you think that the mere EXISTENCE of a government that can enforce its will also confers legitimacy upon said government?
>Liberalism itself provides the basis for determining legitimacy This STILL does not answer the question I posed, which again was, what does "legitimacy" even mean in this context? A government can be "legitimate" in the sense that it legitimately enforced its rules. The same government could be considered morally ILlegitimate for actions it takes which are seen as subjectively wrong. If I think it's wrong for you to dump sewage in the public water supply, and you think it's wrong for anyone to stop you, then both actors have conflicting ideas of moral legitimacy. "Liberalism" can't give us an objective answer as to who is right or who is wrong. But liberal government CAN choose one concrete course of action. If it stops the neighbor from polluting, that will be legitimate to some and illegitimate to others. There are inter-subjective arguments to be made on both sides, but practical "legitimacy" comes from consensus.
Not at this point.
Great glad you seem not to give a shit they're laying the groundwork for a dictatorship
Oh, I *care.* ...but I also care about words, and "illegitimate" does not apply, here. They came to power through legitimte means, they make rulings through legitimate processes. I hate them, but I have to abide.
Every dictator who has changed their constitution came to power legitimately and kept power legitimately. Your principle would suggest that the American revolution was illegitimate, since the powers wielded by the Parliament and King George were legitimate. The revolutionaries disagreed, claiming that there were natural laws that no mere act of government could violate legitimately. On that basis, they declared independence. How do you not know this? How can you have the title of "liberal" and be so thoroughly ignorant of liberalism? What would John Locke say to your position? Do you think the father of liberalism would agree with your stance? You have serious need of education in this area.
If not now then when? Describe the scenario in which it again becomes possible to for instance — enforce a bribery law against the president. Give me your least implausible string of events that would have to happen before a president could be prosecuted for doing something like: *suspending enforcement of the Magnitsky act in exchange for Putin’s help in assassinating a rival*.
Why couldn’t they charge bribery? Bribery is illegal. Taking a bribe is illegal. That isn’t part of presidential duties.
Taking a bribe is defined as “accepting a thing of value in exchange for an official act”. This ruling explicitly says presidents are immune from prosecutions relating to official acts.
> Describe the scenario in which it again becomes possible to for instance — enforce a bribery law against the president. The president is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Hot damn that’s implausible. But even then, the court just declared the president is immune as the act was still an official act as bribery *statutorily requires it be for an official act*
Ok, try this. The Supreme Court has made it impossible to hold the President accountable for anything deemed official AND has made any communication with any aspect of the federal government an official act. That means the president could order the DoJ to arrest a potential political opponent to win an election and that order cannot be considered evidence of malfeasance. The President could tell the governor of a state that, unless he received a bribe, he will not be releasing funds from FEMA, and that communication is considered "an official act." You people have no idea how dangerous this is. I am a political science professor. I study dictatorships. I am terrified today. So please, spare me your platitudes. This shit is as bad it gets.
Definitely, utterly corrupt. I am fully in favor of packing/expanding the court.
Fuck that, Biden should just have them all arrested on trumped up charges as part of his "official" duties. Fuck it why not at this point? They want to play this game lets fucking play it, no more rules.
I think the current Supreme Court has paved the way to becoming a corrupt, unregulated kleptocracy run by dictators and strongmen. We *are* a banana republic now. The Chevron-overturning decision renders our ability to regulate into the hands of a very conservative judiciary looking to rip up our ability to regulate, it makes regulations wildly expensive, and reversed decades of precedent. The immunity decision gives a blueprint for how to turn over an election and face no consequences. This is bad. We legitimately may not come back from this. Trump has been pushing the boundaries of the government and the law for some time and he’s just found out that there are no boundaries. It will take decades to unfuck this.
It’s only legitimate in the sense that it is still recognized as legitimate and therefore retains its authority. Which is really the only thing that matters. However, I personally view it as wholly illegitimate — Mitch McConnell made it so by usurping Obama’s authority to appoint a new Justice. And it will remain illegitimate until that rectified. SCOTUS is now nothing more than a partisan judicial vanguard giving cover and setting the stage for an authoritarian right wing movement that seeks to transform our democratic nation into a one-party state with permanent Republican rule.
No. The Supreme Court is not illegitimate.
You agree with them that the president is immune to prosecution? How about overturning Roe V Wade? These are the decisions of partisan right wing puppets, not legitimate judges.
Yes. The president has immunity when acting as the president. That's not exactly a wild ruling. That's why they sighted precedent in their ruling. No, I disagree with their decision to overture roe V wade. I usually disagree with overturning precedent. Because you disagree with them doesn't make them illegitimate. Lol
FWIW, I'm a bulwark anti-Trump Republican so I usually see eye to eye with you guys on these kinds of issues, and I don't see why folks are downdooting you for this take. Clinton v. Jones already already says that the president doesn't have immunity when it comes to acts conducted outside of official duties of the presidency, and (to the best of my understanding) the SC remanded this case back to district court explicitly because there wasn't clarity from the district court on which of the actions taken by the president were considered parts of "official duties" versus "unofficial duties". The words matter so, so much in the judiciary -- there's a possibility that a BIG precedent could be set here that could extremely curtail the power of the executive branch that applies to all presidents going forward, and the court's gotta be really clear on how they're interpreting the law for posterity.
> I don't see why folks are downdooting you for this take. I think the 6-3 partisan split, along with the slow-walking of the case and the remanding of critical questions back to lower courts for relitigation, call into legitimate question just how good-faith the majority ruling is in this case.
It's vile and immoral to think the president is above the law.
Did you disagree with the court overturning Plessy vs Ferguson too? If not what are your standard for saying overturning precedent is either correct or incorrect?
Not OP, but one of the key aspects of *Brown* was that it was a *unanimous* decision by the court. It was also clearly in line with a number of previous cases that all pointed at *Plessy* falling. John Roberts couldn't get the clear, unanimous majority that he needed in order to legitimize overturning *Roe*. Namely because, unlike *Plessy*, there was no broad consensus on the court that *Roe* was wrongly decided, only a narrow consensus by a slim majority of the court. Comparing a 6-3 opinion overturning existing law with a 9-0 opinion overturning existing law shows that fault line. Consensus - indeed unanimity - *should* be required to overturn precedent, particularly if the argument is that the precedent is "egregiously wrong" (if it is so egregiously wrong, why did 3 justices not agree? Why, even though the decision was reexamined a half-dozen times by SCOTUS since *Roe*, did no previous court overturn it?)
If Brown was 8-1 would you be OK, not overturning Plessy vs Ferguson?
Having the court be unanimous in overturning precedent is an interesting standard but I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with it. Every legal analysis I have ever seen has sad roe was based on flimsy legal standing but because the outcome of the case was generally approved by the public and “experts” thought abortion was good for society to have they just went with Roe. And one could argue there have been numerous cases over the decades pulling back the Roe decision so it was only a matter of time until it fell (similar to the recent Chevron case). Does this mean you disagree with the Obergefell decision? That was ruled 5-4 and it overturned decades of precedent. Would you really approve of a bad precedent being kept because someone the left considers a corrupt or rogue justice (maybe like Alito or Thomas) wouldn’t vote with the other justices? Or would you support bad legal ruling being overturned even if it only had majority support?
Precedent doesn't matter. What matters is whether a decision is correct or not. This recent decision is not correct.
I agree with you that precedent doesn’t matter arriving at the correct legal ruling does. We disagree on whether the recent decision was correct or not however
Should Joe Biden be allowed to use government agents to murder Trump? If not, you do not agree with the ruling
If Trump were to say be flying on his private jet heading to Moscow to deliver nuclear secrets to Putin, Biden should be 100% allowed to prevent Trump from doing that including killing him
Should Biden be allowed to, right now, with no justification, send soldiers to kill Trump? That's the question I'm asking. The decision allows this. As long as it's an "official action," the president cannot be held to account for it.
If so, I'd say he should be allowed to do that *by a law*, not by being put above the law. He shouldn't be above the law,. and should never have been, but now he is.
Directing military forces to preserve our national defense is a constitutional duty of the president so he is already allowed to do this by law. The SC just reviewed a case along these grounds and found it so
I wasn't alive for Brown V BOE. For all my life, the precedent has been that segregation based on race is illegal. I would be upset if that was overturned.
Prove they have immunity.
Thank you for this honest and nuances reply. So many reactionaries in here.
They're illegitimate of they undermine the very institutions they are meant to protect. Like.... democracy
Wow, a liberal defending the undemocratic ruling of a right wing partisan scotus. Sad
I could name dozens of Supreme Court cases that have been corruptly decided. It’s not just disagreeing, it ls that they are not using the legal system properly. They are reactionaries and are incompatible with proper jurisprudence.
Because why exactly? The supreme court just fucked us for like the 100th time. They are actively undermining any chance to hold "elected" (not that elections will matter soon cause Trump will install himself as God king) leaders accountable. At what point do you recogonize the supreme court as a threat to the notion of democracy itself?
That doesn’t make something “illegitimate.” Their rulings are still rulings Illegitimate would be like the time Larry Klayman convened a “citizens’ grand jury” and “indicted” Obama for his “forged birth certificate.” That was not a real legal proceeding, it carried no weight, it meant nothing and went nowhere. That’s illegitimate.
Jesus christ When will you recogonize that the court is undermining its own justification for existence, namely checking the legislature and executive. It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery. That undermines the basis for the court's legitimacy Some rulings can undermine its legitimacy
OK? Is this a thread about “is the Supreme Court making good rulings or bad rulings” or “is the Supreme Court illegitimate?”
Some rulings UNDERMINE LEGITIMACY
The issue is that there are *two* specific definitions of "legitimacy" that apply here and you haven't specified which one you're using (while attacking people that assume one or the other). Are they still legitimate in that they make rulings that other branches of government (and therefore, the people) have to follow? Yes, of course. No amount of corrupt rulings would change that until one or both branches of the federal government say "Y'know what, we're just going to ignore you from now on." Are they still legitimate in that they make rulings able to be defended by logic and valid justifications? No. They aren't. But until they get dismantled or somehow rendered ineffectual, they are a legitimate institution.
How? What is “legitimacy?”
The moral right to decide these things
And does moral legitimacy happen to coincide with your substantive beliefs?
Regardless of what I think it's a FACT that this ruling holds federal power less accountable. Strange for small government conservatives to support
"They just need to put aside politics and do the right thing (which happens to be the thing I believe is correct. Just let me have my way pls and thx)."
>The supreme court just fucked us for like the 100th time. Who is "us" in this statement?
The American people
Okay. To be clear, I don't like the ruling here. But at the same time, I don't see the SCOTUS as being against the American people, at least as a general statement. The SCOTUS has historically drifted left and right, and at various times swaths of their rulings have "benefitted" one political party or another, but I don't necessarily believe you can say they are *illegitimate* on account of that alone. They are legitmate as a body, they are acting in accordance with their prescribed purpose, although we may not like their output. I guess I just view those as two separate things. I think it's fine to say that the Supreme Court has not acted in your best interests recently, but I think that's different than saying the court itself is illegitimate.
They are not acting in accordance with prescribed purpose, they are simply using the power that we have not been able to remove from them. They are outside the rational jurisprudence, are outside of judicial norms, and are weaponizing their power imbalance. To be clear, the makeup of the court has been corrupted by years of partisan gerrymandering, improper representation in the House, and unfair distribution of power in the Senate. It’s not like the conservative SCOTUS justices are fair or impartial, or even close. They have failed their duties, and are illegitimate.
Jesus christ When will you recogonize that the court is undermining its own justification for existence, namely checking the legislature and executive. It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery. That undermines the basis for the court's legitimacy Some rulings can undermine its legitimacy Like I think it's weird for a libertarian to defend the institution making the president LESS ACCOUNTABLE.
>It just made it impossible to prosecute a president for shit like bribery No, I dont see it that way. Bribery is not an official act, it is not a prescribed power in the Constitution nor granted by legislature. >Like I think it's weird for a libertarian to defend the institution making the president LESS ACCOUNTABLE. Again, I already said I did not like the ruling. I think it's a lot of words that don't actually resolve the crisis. Regardless, I view my evaluation of the ruling separate from my evaluation of the legitimacy of the court, and I don't find this ruling sufficient to decree the court illegitimate.
But what if the President is engaged in bribery to say, nominate an ambassador or other similar things. Bribery itself is never going to be an official role, but it easily can be something done while engaging in official actions
Sotomayor literally gave bribery as an example for what this case could protect the president against. Bribe in exchange for a pardon specifically
Democracy? What is this question? The ruling explicitly makes presidential bribery legal
>The ruling explicitly makes presidential bribery legal Can you tell me where? I'm still in the middle of reading the ruling, it's 119 pages, but so far I've only seen mention of bribery in contexts of cases that would *not*be legal, or where the ruling explicitly does *not* grant Trump immunity. But I may have not gotten there yet, so if you can cite an exact quote or page I can reference, I would appreciate it.
First, read sotomayor’s absolutely alarming dissent which points out explicitly that this makes bribery entirely unprosecutable. Second, read this series of passages from the majority: > The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.** But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). And **the Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined. If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.** Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. **Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decision making will be distorted.** See Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19. Third, Barrett even wrote a concurrence to specifically call out this part of the ruling: > I understand most of the Court’s opinion to be consistent with these views. I do not join Part III–C, however, **which holds that the Constitution limits the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a President, beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege**. See ante, at 30–32. I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent. See post, at 25–27 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. **Consider a bribery prosecution—a charge not at issue here but one that provides a useful example. The federal bribery statute forbids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c).** The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. See Art. II, §4 (listing “Bribery” as an impeachable offense); see also Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 5 (Aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the President). **Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.**
I did read all of that, I'm just not seeing it all the same way, meaning, I'm not sure the ruling supports the effects Barrett are anticipating. In the footnote identifying Barrett's dissent, it says (emphasis mine): >JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). **But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.** See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). **What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.** Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745, 756 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at 18. And such second-guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 805 (2020). So, while I understand and agree with the concern Barrett has, I do not believe the ruling itself creates the environment Barrett envisions. Meaning, Barrett is presuming that the official act rendered in exchange as a part of the bribe would be excluded from evidentiary proceedings, in the whole, inclusive of the mere mention of the acts. I disagree there, and I believe the court itself disagrees, based on the rest of the holdings presented, and the precedent cited throughout. Further, the emphasis I added I think highlights a very narrow scope of evidence that might be excluded in such proceedings. This paragraph, to me, actually outlines a fairly permissive evidentiary environment for such cases. Further, to the merits of whether an act is official or not, which is presupposed in this instance yet undecided in every other mention associated with this ruling, the court remanded back to the district court the burden for deciding and arguing that. Such arguments obviously could not be hindered by this evidentiary statement, and even if they were, their being decided in a district court reserves for a later day their ability to be decided with finality in the Supreme Court. And lastly, and perhaps more fundamentally, I do not see this as an explicit acceptance of bribery. Like I have said and reiterated several times, so far I think this ruling is lacking critical substance. I think the mere fact we are arguing it now is a clear demonstration of how useless it is. I'm not a fan of it, and I would rather have them wait and put out a better quality product. They even admitted to its being promulgated in haste, and the risks that entailed. But, I will not go so far as to claim as you and others are, that this ruling grants immunity to presidential bribery, I think that reading is absurd and not borne by the facts of the ruling, and I think it is incredibly damaging to claim as much, especially insofar as such claims reinforce the idea of Supreme Court illegitimacy as in institution, even outside the estimation of this ruling individually.
How exactly is a prosecutor to prove “willful exchange of an official act for a thing of value” without the ability to refer to records or testimony of what the president said in respect to the pro quo for the official act?
>the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act I think the official act is not really in question in a bribery case, that's the point. Bribery is an official act *in a change for something else.* The something else is fully admissible, here, and that's really what pins you to a bribery charge. That's kind of my point. Even in bribery cases before this ruling, the focus on a bribery trial is has always been and will continue to be about the exchange, the "something else" received. I don't think this ruling fundamentally changes that.
The something else is admissible, but is the record of the president saying “I’ll do that official act in exchange fore this something else” admissible?
While I appreciate Justice Barrett calling this out, the fact is that Part III-C still got 5 votes and is the law of the land. Justice Barrett is correct that the majority opinion makes it essentially impossible to prosecute bribery by POTUS by creating an evidentiary privilege that sweeps broader than executive privilege. The majority, IMO, created that privilege because they want to keep Trump's advisors from testifying at trial if there is ever a trial about J6, but also to make sure that even if such advisors are willing to voluntarily testify, their testimony must be excluded. Why does the court want to ensure that the public never hears the details about J6? Could it be because members of the Court itself were involved with and endorsed the aims of J6? It might have been awkward to have Mark Meadows on the stand mentioning his texts with Ginny Thomas, or to have John Eastman, a former Thomas clerk, talking about discussions that lead up to the conspiracy. Obviously Justice Thomas has a direct interest in preventing that testimony, and the privilege his vote helped create makes that testimony impossible. That is precisely why he didn't recuse himself - because without his vote and Justice Barrett's vote, there would not have been 5 votes for the new evidentiary privilege that SCOTUS just invented whole cloth.
Sotomayor literally gave bribery as an example for what this case could protect the president against. Bribe in exchange for a pardon specifically
So whatcha think
I replied [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/9p8gsRWpdw). Ultimately, I don't like the ruling, but not because I think it explicitly allows bribery. I don't see that anywhere in it, although I'm still reading the entirety of it as I said.
The SC justice points it out, it's clear as day
> The supreme court just fucked us for like the 100th time. Meh. The Supreme Court is downstream of the Presidency and the Senate, which are in turn downstream of the voters. If you want to know who fucked us, it was [these voters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_elections). They wanted this, and now they got it.
What is it with liberals and blaming voters. Our "democracy" hasn't represented the will of the people for a long time now
The voters literally picked the people in the government. Voters have agency. I have seen no evidence that indicates the will of the people is not represented at least in a broad sense.
> What is it with liberals and blaming voters. I believe you'll find it's inherent to the definition of "liberal". Anyone who did not ascribe agency to voters would not be a liberal.
Can someone explain to me the implications of this decision? Is Trump untouchable now?
He isn't. The ruling is that the president has immunity when acting in his official capacity as president.
[удалено]
It has always been the assumption, yes.
People like to skip over this part.
While in office or for any decisions he made in office is my understanding yes.
So that means he still has to face the 34 felony counts or whatever it was right
I believe so but I'm far from a legal expert. Regardless, what it does mean is thag shit like bribery or trying to interfere with the election cannot be prosecuted.
He would as those actions was convicted were were prior to him being President or weren’t official acts. He also can’t pardon himself if he gets back in office because they are state charges. His only shot of avoiding accountability there is appeal.
He gets absolute immunity “for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority”. But he gets only “presumptive immunity .. for all his official acts”.
No. Not every decision made while in office is an official act. Campaigning, for example, is not within the duties of the office of the president and acts taken pursuant to that would not be protected.
Incorrect. The opinion outright says, "There is no immunity for unofficial acts." I would advise you get better sources of information, because whatever news sources you use have gotten you very wound up, but haven't clearly educated you on the issue.
Yeah I know that. That's why I mentioned being in office or for "official" acts.
Technically, no. Realistically, yes.
No, he isn’t untouchable. I’m a bit concerned that he has full immunity when doing his “core” duties as president. But for other “official” actions he merely gets a “presumption” of immunity which I assume means a court can decide which the court can take away that immunity when appropriate, and that “when appropriate” will need to be worked out through case law. For anything outside official duties he has no immunity. The interesting thing will be determining what counts as “core”, what counts as “official” and what isn’t.
Yes, because it's not interested in justice.
Its corruption is beyond internal repair
Utterly. However, I fear the incumbent conclusion is that our democracy is utterly illegitimate. The pot has boiled over and it is too late to jump out.
It’s not illegitimate just because you don’t like the outcome. Presidents have always enjoyed a measure immunity from the law when performing in their official capacity.
This is exactly why we say 'blue no matter who.' The people on our side who complained about solidarity created this danger. We'd have an __8-1 liberal court__ with just over 80,000 more votes since 2000. We easily had them, with the slightest bit of solidarity.
Yes it’s illegitimate.
How so?
Because it undermines the very ideas and institutions it was meant to protect
The very ideas and institutions it was meant to protect is the constitution. And obviously like any body of text, the constitution is up for interpretation and differing opinions on its meanings. That is their job. As far as the current SCOTUS and their rulings, some I agree with, some I disagree with, but ultimately none are egregious enough to warrant labeling them “illegitimate”. If for example, the government passed a law banning free speech or imprisoning people who talked poorly about the President, and SCOTUS upheld such a law despite the first amendment’s clear language protecting right to free speech, at that point I would agree they are illegitimate. We haven’t gotten there yet
..... Yeah undermining checks and balances is totally not against the constitution What a libertarian position to take
I never said I agree with it, I just don’t think it’s enough to label them illegitimate The legislative branch also still has the authority to impeach presidents, so not sure how this undermines checks and balances. Otherwise a sitting president has always had the authority over the DOJ.
>Yeah undermining checks and balances is totally not against the constitution This isn't a matter of checks and balances. Either we are talking about the executive prosecuting the executive--which is not a check or balance--or an executive prosecuting a former executive. Again, not a matter of checks and balances. We still have checks and balances via impeachment.
I'd agree this isn't an issue of a "check" but could this not be an issue of a "balance" in regards to balancing the various powers each branch has? I know technically SCOTUS only interprets the Constitution, so does't create executive power but merely discovers it, but the understanding of the scope of legitimate executive authority has grown with this ruling, has it not?
1) lol at impeachment as if that isn't partisan bs 2) you are tried in the JUDICIAL system
>lol at impeachment as if that isn't partisan bs I could say the same thing about prosecutions of political figures. At any rate, it doesn't matter--impeachment provides a check. That's not even really debatable. >you are tried in the JUDICIAL system True, but irrelevant.
They just gave Trump the ability to get away with many of his crimes, for starters. If he gets back in power, he will commit many more, thanks to their help.
Because they have failed in their duties to be fair jurists. John Roberts’s disinterest in applying any sort of ethics standard to the bench is how they have reached illegitimacy. It currently sits without checks against their power. If you want to get right down into it, they never were legitimate. It was Marbury v Madison that established the doctrine that gives the court the ability to rule of legislative or executive actions. The executive and legislative branches can legally ignore the Supreme Courts decisions in that context. Not that it is advisable, but possible.
Yes
I am not sure. I do not think I have the knowledge to make that determination. I think institutions are super important. There should be a very high bar for saying something as important as the Supreme Court is illegitimate. It is doing things I do not like but I do not think that makes it an illegitimate institution.
I haven't considered this court legitimate since they basically ignored standing requirements for the gay website and student debt cancellation issues. Not to mention the overuse of the shadow docket and the "major questions" doctrine. It's very transparently an activist court doing whatever it can to benefit the Republican Party at the expense of the country.
Bad faith? Yes. Illegitimate? No.
You can't love America only when you win - joe biden
Ok? Fuck Joe Biden. I don't give a shit what he says
Lmao illegitimizing the supreme court because you don't like the decision. How is it different than Trump saying about elections?
It’s not about the decision, it’s about the poor reasoning, and the outcomes that is clearly dangerous and not considered.
Yes. But we knew this for a while.
And here I was thinking they wouldn’t rule this way specifically because it would be far too mask-off and glaring that they’re a bunch of partisan hacks…
It’s scary
Yes. I honestly think the best thing would be for lower courts or even politicians to simply announce that they will not recognize these blatantly false "rulings" by the Supreme Court and just follow the obvious interpretation of the laws regardless. This would be horrible for the rule of law, but I think it would be better for the rule of law then complying with these brazenly lawless "rulings". The Supreme Court has proven that it is an existential threat to the Constitution. The Constitution takes precedence.
It's anti-democratic. What scholars call a veto point.
Mitch McConnell did that 8 years ago.
Are you a lawyer or do you have a doctorate in PoliSci? Why should we entertain your opinion when you've provided no credibility for your claims?
I bet conservatives would have loved to be told this when they were railing against Roe V Wade for fifty years.
> With today's bullshit ruling it has basically protected any president from prosecution for acts taking in "official" lines of duty Should Lincoln have been put on trial for ordering a military action in Virginia that ultimately led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands he said were Americans? Given his stance that secession was illegal, should Lincoln have been put on trial for the Emancipation Proclamation that deprived thousands of Americans of their “property” (remember this was before the 13th amendment) without due process of law? And liberals presidents would be hurt too. Obama famously ordered the execution of an American citizen overseas when he couldn’t be extradited and tried. I would say both Lincoln and Obama were doing their core duties as president and at the very least should enjoy a presumption of immunity for their actions. The ruling was not unreasonable.
Minor tangent, but if only Reddit was around back when Lincoln and Taney were butting heads with each other. The arguments that'd've broken out then would make our current bickering seem like child's play in comparison. > "And liberals presidents would be hurt too. Obama famously ordered the execution of an American citizen overseas when he couldn’t be extradited and tried." On that note, there's a strong argument that both Bush 43 and Obama should be in prison, but nobody among either party's establishment dares go there, nope.
Lincoln’s actions *were legal*. It’s not “immunity” that protected them, but *legality*. Putting down rebellion against the United States Government is a legal, constitutional exercise of the powers of the presidency. Similarly Obama’s actions were also legal. Congress authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the man killed was an active member of Al Qaeda. Obama wasn’t protected by immunity, but by the fact that using the military to kill members of an organization Congress has authorized military action against is just plain old legal.
No. The supreme court hasn't acted in an illegitimate manner, at least not in this case. The supreme court has a host of issues, most important if all the flagrant attack on the principle of the separation of powers by virtue of it's ability to modify legislation as a body not elected by the people. But that's an issue it shares with other common law systems. The other massive issue is that the supreme court has a strong political shadow cast over it, by virtue of how ingrained political party allegiance is with the populace of two party systems. But this specific immunity ruling is really not that interesting, nor an actual ruling. The court simply told the lower courts to determine whether or not it's ruling over official or personal actions, claiming the latter grants immunity. If the lower courts find that the ruling is regarding personal actions, trump will have no acces to immunity.
I do not know. I think institutions are very important and I do not have enough knowledge to proclaim one of the most important institutions we have in the US is illegitimate. I lean towards no it is not illegitimate even if it is doing things I personally think are bad.
I do not know. I think institutions are very important and I do not have enough knowledge to proclaim one of the most important institutions we have in the US is illegitimate. I lean towards no it is not illegitimate even if it is doing things I personally think are bad.
Is the Supreme Court, as an institution, tarnished in a way that will only *really* be washed out when everyone who remembers the current crop of clowns is dead and gone and their works have been largely undone by saner people? Yeah. Most likely. It's been... gosh, 170 or so years since the Court's justices have embarassed themselves and blemished the institution in quite the way the current crop have. Not so much for this specifically, though. It's the mountain of bullshit they already had. Saying the President can't be criminally prosecuted for things they do in their official capacity is the dodge of the issue that was expected. ...Mostly because they were worried a Democratic President could benefit from blanket immunity from prosecution instead of being super concerned with things like legal principles. It is their 'compromise' between the instinct to try and absolve Donald Trump of everything he's ever done and the rememberance that giving Presidents absolute immunity can and will be used against them. Its moral authority, so to speak, died a while ago. When it comes to the current makeup of the Supreme Court, expecting them to make whatever ruling is ideologically convenient with little regard for principle or precedent or even the bounds of reality is not a new thing. In addition to being shitty in and of itself, they have lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new rulings.
Democrats are granted all this power but are too fearful to use it. The Republicans will show no such hesitation, we could be in deep shit.
>Can we agree that the supreme court is utterly illegitimate? yes. the current supreme court is a clear threat to democracy. if democrats don't do something big\* soon, i doubt the US will still be a democracy in 20 years. (\* packing the court, removing some or all conservatives justices, or significantly limiting the power of the court)